Romanov Family Book Report

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

With over a century of military and civil discontent the Romanov Dynasty was bound to fall sooner or later. The fall of the Romanov Dynasty was a result of long-term causes including Tsar Alexander’s inability to satisfy his people and Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule to throne all together. The collapse was also an outcome of immediate causes; the effects of World War One on Russia and the 1917 revolution. All long-term and immediate cause played a crucial role in stirring the nation until Russia was clearly overdue to be overthrown.

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

The Romanov dynasty began in 1613, however 1917 saw an abrupt end to the Romanov’s with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Demonstrations and strikes gripped the Russian people and with anti-governmental soldiers taking control, the Tsar had no alternative but to abdicate. Historians such as Michael Lynch1 and John Daborn2 state that in Russia’s great need of strength and power came a Tsar of weakness and limited outlook. However historians such as Ray Pearson believe that in aggressive opposition groups and with the help of the working class aimed to bring down the Tsardom at all costs.

Power is something that is often used carelessly, even with its great importance. In the Family Romanov by Candace Fleming, power is used carelessly. In the Family Romanov, the tsar of Imperial Russia, Nicholas refused to give the people the rights and things they wanted and deserved. His refusal to do so eventually ended with Nicholas and the imperial family’s assassination. His inability to make just decisions without the “help” of his wife Alexandra and the “holy man” Rasputin resulted in his death. Nicholas stayed “blissfully” ignorant to all his subject’s sufferings and eventually paid the price for it. Fleming’s argument about power is that power is not a child’s toy, as power should be in use by someone fit to rule the proletariat fairly and it should be something to be used with responsibility and caution.

In a burgeoning climate of autocracy, the Romanov dynasty was firmly established in the societal framework of early 20th-century Russia. Having been in varying degrees of absolute political control over an approximate time period of four hundred years, their eventual undoing marked a power shift polarising the imperial regime laid out by countless Tsars beforehand. Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia, is recognised to have a degree of personal responsibility for the downfall of the Romanovs, yet the extent to which his decision-making skills can be held accountable is questioned by some historians. Despite this, multiple political, social, and military facets of Nicholas II’s reign were handled with instability, and his perceived lack of legitimacy due to this poor decision-making ultimately was a major causative factor to the downfall of his family’s vast dynasty.

The first of these tsars, Ivan III, also known as “Ivan the Great”, defied Mongol control and declared the autonomy of Moscow. Ivan III was soon followed by Ivan IV, also known as “Ivan the Terrible”, who declared his power by pushing aside his advisors, crowning himself tsar and crushing boyars, who were Russian nobles. At first, Ivan’s reign was successful as he added vast new territories to the Russian empire. Later, after his wife’s death, Ivan’s power and prosperity declined because he started persecuting those whom he believed opposed him. This resulted in the execution of many nobles and their families, friends, servants and peasants, in which he replaced with a new service nobility, whose loyalty was “guaranteed by their dependent on the state for land and titles.” [1] Ivan the Terrible nor Ivan III were never absolute rulers- their ways of ruling just helped lay the foundation for Russian absolutism. After Ivan IV and his successor died, Russia entered a “Time of Troubles”, which lasted from 1598-1613, in which the peasant warrior bands known as Cossacks, rebelled against their nobles who fought back and defeated the Cossacks. Ivan’s grand-nephew, Michael Romanov, was soon elected by the Zensky Sober- a body of nobles, and placed efforts toward state-building. He was succeeded by “Peter the Great”, the Russian king that truly consolidated Russian

The Romanov Dynasty reigned over the nation of Russia from the year 1613 until its inevitable fall in 1917. Outlined below includes a few of the significant factors which contributed to decline and the eventual fall of this 300 year dynasty. These momentous factors range from tsar Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia’s autocratic rule, his refusal to meet the demands for reform, and above all his incompetency as a leader.

However, Nicholas’s personality was not the sole reason why the Old Regime collapsed. Chubarov argues that “another Peter the Great could have saved the Romanovs and Imperial Russia. It is obvious though that the last tsar could not” . Nicholas’s lack of

In The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth  Century Russia, Cynthia Whittaker argues that depending on the historical, cultural and contextual period, there can be demarcated two types, both distinctive and contrasting, of Russian sovereigns, namely the “good tsar” and the “reforming tsar”. The scholar juxtaposes the two models of monarchs against the backdrop of “medieval” versus “modern” type of governance. According to it the “good tsar” typology, which is typical for the earlier Muscovy realm, defines the ruler as pious and inert, characterized by its liturgical form and static nature of the rule. The “good tsar” is bound to uphold Orthodoxy, preserve and control public order, help the poor and the underdogs

One resource used for this investigation was Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie, which describes the reign of Nicholas II. This source was published in 1967 in the United States, thus the book is a secondary source. Massie is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian whose work focuses on the Russian Romanovs. Massie’s alma mater includes Yale and Oxford University. The source is highly valuable in its extremely detailed and comprehensive research of nearly 600 pages, providing the thoughts of those in positions of power and interesting, insightful perspectives to the situation at the time. An analysis on connecting causes and effects are thorough and

From what Massie describes in The Final Chapter it only really gives a small glimpse of what happened before the Romanovs were executed. Russia was suffering under Nicholas’s rule. When Nicholas was crowned in 1896 he wanted to preserve the absolute monarchy but the Russian people wanted change. Over the course of his rule he would go back on his word numerous times which would favor his rivals, The Bolsheviks. Russia would fight unprepared in WW1. The military and resources would suffer great losses. All of this would lead the Russian people to lose faith in their Tsar. In 1914, the February Revolution would begin and after much rebellion Nicholas abdicated the throne in 1917. The November Revolution commanded by leader of the Bolsheviks, Vladimir

“Days of a Russian Noblewoman” is a translated memoir originally written by a Russian noblewoman named Anna Labzina. Anna’s memoir gives a unique perspective of the private life and gender roles of noble families in Russia. Anna sees the male and female gender as similar in nature, but not in morality and religiosity. She sees men as fundamentally different in morality and religiosity because of their capability to be freely dogmatic, outspoken, and libertine. Anna implies throughout her memoir that woman in this society have the capacity to shape and control their lives through exuding a modest, submissive, and virtuous behavior in times of torment. Through her marriage, Labzina discovers that her society is highly male centered.

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

Once Rasputin arrived at the Palace, they gave him poisoned wine and tea. When Rasputin did not die from the poison, Yusupov shot him. Rasputin survived again and made his way to the courtyard where Purishkevich shot him in the head. The nobles then rolled him up in a rug and, “threw him through a hole in the ice into the Neva River” (Grigory). After further investigation of his assassination, they discovered claw marks on the bottom of the ice. He was poisoned, shot in the body, and shot in the head, but Rasputin only died after he was drowned.